Email Topic

Recipient Email Address(es):

Personal Message (Optional):

Libertarianism and drugs

So to shake this group up a bit, I want to start a debate on a topic that usually splits Libertarians and Conservatives. For full disclosure -- I have never used any drugs, don't smoke -- I don't even drink alcohol or drink coffee.

So the libertarian position is, if it's your body -- you can do what you want. You can't drive while under the influence, or (at least arguably) use in public. Certainly you can't use on private property if the property owner prohibits it (Libertarians don't suppor the public accomodation doctrine generally). However, in the privacy of your own home -- your business.

What other controls are there? -- social. IMO, the main one would be work. Employers should be free to test -- if they choose. Some employers already test, but they have to pass what some judge or bureaucrat deems as a "bona fide business purpose". It should be up the business owner.

There is another level of issue which is federalism and legitimate limits of political institutions. So first, as a Federalist -- the federales should be hands off of local laws (e.g., medical marijuana). At the local level, can a local government prohibit certian types of intoxicants -- yes. Whether it should is another story, but it's no different than banning strip clubs in you city for example.

The difficult extension of this one is -- what if the majority of states (or senators and congressmen) decide to ban something nationwide. Is there anything unconstitutional about this? Well the libertarian argument is yes, unless it falls under Article I, Section 8, deals with interstate commerce, or is a dispute amongst the states.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you may have cancer or some other incurable disease. Here's a shot of morphine to kill the unbearable pain and an array of other pain-killing cocktails to take home....until the final day comes. "We can't cure you but don't drive any machinery or drink alcohol while taking this medicine, until you do die, but keep up your work quota.

That's the only time when hardcore drugs should be legal. All you other pro-drug, mind alternating druggies are a cancer.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

There's nothing like watching a seven year old with tears running down her face, making the hand sign to shoot her up again with morphine to kill the pain to turn one into a pro-legalization of government controlled drug for incurable innocents..

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I've been around the music business much of my life. Anything can be a demon. But your personal demons do not need to be put out of reach of everyone. I've seen drugs destroy people. I've also known people who really could do a couple lines of coke on Saturday afternoon, and have no thought of doing it from Monday morning 8 am to Friday afternoon 5 pm.

I don't want the government "protecting me" from myself; even if that has a cost. I'm willing to accept the risks of liberty. But I demand my personal liberty.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Maria, All arts, including video games, music, movies, and books take us away from eating, sleeping or working. I, along with many members of my family have been guilty of partaking in one or more of these pleasures until late into the night, and paying for it the next day with inefficient (or even absence from) work.

"And all I can do is read a book to stay awakeAnd it rips my life away, but it's a great escape"-Blind Melon, "No Rain"

The fact is, the vast majority of people are able to read books without an issue, so why punish everyone else? (remove tongue from cheek now).

If someone drinks beer on Saturday, but shows up to work on Monday, who cares? If they use a chemical other than alcohol to make themselves happy, what difference does it make?

I might agree with you if there was some need to be perfectly utilitarian in our activities, but if someone pays their taxes, is not a drain on society, and doesn't cause harm to other people, who cares what they do for fun? This actually describes the vast majority of drug users, but of course you don't hear about them because they aren't a problem. You only see the ones who are a problem, like whatever whacko (must have) enabled a 7 year old to get hooked on heroin.

The basic problem with your solution is that is a slippery-slope and leads to people, like mayor Bloomberg, thinking it's also okay to ban salt and 20 ounce sodas.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

its all in where you draw the line. crack babies are your problem already....and mine. meth addicts are your problem already....and mine. heroin addicts are your problem already....and mine. There's no way around it. the addicts live in the same community you do - and darn right their behavior affects you therefore. We remain a 'collectivist' species. The question isn't whether we are or aren't because we are. The question is all in where you draw the line - how you balance the rights and freedoms - of the individual against the requirements or demands imposed by our collective survival. And obviously. There are precious few easy answers here. So get over it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Ho do you mean 'statist'? I really am not sure I have the definition of 'collectivism' and 'statism' so I'm unclear about what the difference is that's meant between 'social' versus these other. So please clarify.

the 'slippery slope' argument, by the way...I don't see working - in the sense that there just always has to be that potential of slipping this way and that doesn't mean one just does nothing. Once you decide you cant go with either extreme - pretty much you are left with where to draw the line. As someone pointed out: yes we need to have taxes - it is the price of civilized society - but watching over taxes ought to be a national pastime if not a requirement. Reagan was right to alter the tax rates when he took office. On the other hand, he went straight from one pendulum swing to the far extreme other. Instead of "well I don't see why my taxes should pay for another childs free college eduction" to...."well lets see - taxpayers can pay 30 to 40% of the cost of running higher education, and we'll gut student loan programs so only rich people's kids can go to college" - meaning a redistribution of wealth to rich people....which of course he did everywhere you look in his economy...including supposedly lowering taxes while behind the scenes driving the deficit wild, running up the debt to enrich his cronies - in the guise significantly in part of cold war armament. Any interpretation of reality - no matter how absurd - so long as it makes the cronies rich. Exactly the dynamic which gave us the Iraq war and the economic crisis - neither of which would have happened had those "tax and spend" ha ha dems been in office.

Regarding my views, being significantly native American - I tend look to the tribal paradigm...or at lease in the areas that fit. I observe that no native American women, who lost her man - in the 1700's lets say - had to resort to suicide or prostitution as so many white women did back then. Similarly, no adult or child of a native American tribe was refused sufficient food and health care (such as it was) just because the job they held in society was not "important" enough.

Capitalism has never been a complete prescription for community relations. Ever. We just fell into what we have today when free markets and money arose - which in turn were the absolute result of applied science ...ie technology. Capitalism that way in the 1700's - I mean as a de facto complete prescription for community relations - was wrong then, and it is wrong now - though far better.

Obviously we need free markets and the attendant institution of so called 'human rights.' We are merely still a very primitive species in my view. We are engaged with the evolution and experiment.....the dynamics change every day....and we are long ways from figuring it out.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"its all in where you draw the line. crack babies are your problem already....and mine."

True. Regarding crack babies, my first instinct is to look at how we treat other willful harm to babies and children. Yours is to see an opportunity for a bunch more subjective and "situational" rules.

Btw, why is it you care so much about the crack baby we will all have to raise, but you don't give a CR@P about all the OTHER babies that are produced by breeders who did not give birth to a crack baby; though only because they didn't smoke crack, and NOT because they cared one bit about the kid.

" There are precious few easy answers here. So get over it."

True. But the answers tend to be far more simple and predictable when one is consistent.

"We remain a 'collectivist' species. "

Bullsh2t. We are a SOCIAL species. NOT collectivist. And there is not one single example of sustained "collectivism" beyond the village/community level in the entire history of man. Further, any sane examination of our own westward expansion completely disputes this.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

isn't that a false distinction though Bob? sure social of course. collectivist though in other ways....as with the drugs example Barron brings up...... For example, we say here in America, in effect: "It is illegal for anyone living in the community, participating in the benefits of the community, to use crack cocaine, meth, and heroin recreationally....because these are highly addictive and create addicts...who hurt other individuals and also become a burden to the common." How is that not collectivism? When we say "common" what we mean is it impinges on the rights and freedoms of others by placing a burden on the individuals who are the common. The common is nothing more than the set of individuals. Remove the validity of the individual - as Soviet Russia did - and you create an utterly bizarre perversion.... a common for the good of no-one. Actually it was all a sham all along in the Soviet's case - exactly as it is today: a ruling powerful few taking all the benefit under the guise of a "social good" - which they pretend is communism or capitalism .. It doesn't matter what they call it because in the end the effect is exactly the same. Because that's always what happens when there is no regulation to reign in predation...

Which is why conservatives figured out under Reagan that to prey on the American public you just have to put crooked judges on the supreme court.... People who deny reality, as Scalia always has done...and as Roberts just did when he ruled in favor of allowing money in politics again...and to extreme...making the utterly bizarre claim that "there is no evidence that money in politics has caused corruption...." I mean seriously? SERIOUSLY? ... this coming off the economic crisis which was all Wall Street controlling the Bush executive branch? ...

Sure yes...Rand's soviet communism styled version of 'collectivism' is an evil. As is predatory capitalism....which takes advantage of surplus labor and the instrument of the law .... to creates outrageous wealth disparity. Nothing wrong with people being rich....but soviet styled oligarchy is absolutely a perversion... And again the US is heading that way fast because conservatives want to put corporations and oligarchs here in charge of the law. That's what precipitated the economic crisis and we saw clearly what happened with that: the wealthy got wealthier and the middle class got poorer. It was legal theft, pure and simple. I observe wealth is created the labor of millions of individuals. What right do the oligarchs have to thieve that wealth via favored law and manipulation of markets, etc., etc: their sundry fantastic instruments.. Koch's went into the Bush admin worth 5 or 6 billion, and came out worth close to 60 billion....

So clearly in this country, as I've said so many times, it's a push-pull between individual rights - which absolutely are the 'highest good" - and the requirements of our okay call is "social" natures.... There is no other valid guiding principal for humanity than the protection of the sacred individual...and that includes the protection of what we call 'individual human rights.'

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I'm not sure about either discription; but the problem is regulating the results instead of action itself! What is the Crime? Then: deal with it!Government will regulate & Tax anything; all they need is a hint! The other real stumbling block; Law-Makers, don't want to instigate any regulations and restrictions, on themselves! They feel they are annointed, rather than servers! Taxing; is the number one item on the agenda; everything else is a diversion! Any proposal with the tax involved; gets full attention! Witness; "ObamaCare"! We need a tax program that eliminates all of the favorites, and pay-offs, found in the present Income Tax code; (It's 70,000+ pages long)! IT needs replaceing!(HR 25); is the best proposal ever! It's called the Fair Tax, and it changes the way Federal Taxes are collected! The Fair Tax; ia tax on consumption; instead of Income! The Fair Tax, will eliminate ALL other Federal Taxes; INCLUDING THE "EMBEDDED" Taxes! The Wqge-Earners will get their ENTIRE earnings; NO deductions! Receipts for purchases, ewill be un-necessary! NO need to look for "dedutions:; NO person who purchses anything, will be immune! MANY government "jobs" will be eliminated! Those people will join the "jobs-Market"; aand become producers instead of dependants! Can you imagine a wage-earner, getting ALL,of their earnings? Imagine; NO more saving receipts; NO more April 15; deadline! NO morelooking for "deductions"! Lot's of benefits for tax-payers; NO benefits for Poiticians! GO! Fair Tax! GOD; Bless America! In GOD We Trust!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am a devout Libertarian. I have a great deal of respect for the concepts of civil rights and personal responsibility. If a person wants to use drugs I won't stand in their way. All I ask is that they respect my right to "just say no". I would also ask that the user accept personal responsibility when he or she experiences drug related problems.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Let them kill themselves if that's what they want to do. It doesn't matter whether it's drugs or alcohol. If a person is that screwed up then let that person terminate their life. Just don't let them take any innocent bystanders along for the ride. It's all about personal responsibility.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

None of us disagree with your wish list. The problem is that people do not follow it. That means they harm others. They in fact take out innocent lives and destroy property; they go to the ER, which raises our insurance premiums.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

As long as the pain that they create is inflicted on themselves then I have no problems with it. When they violate the rights of others I draw a very broad line. When they inflict their pain on We The People, again, I draw a very broad line. They should pay the full cost for their problems. Their problems should not be subsidized by We The People.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bruce, I still remember a Las Vegas cabbie summarizing Las Vegas for me several decades ago.

"You can screw your life up any way you like. We're just here to help."

I wouldn't even want to know about the human tragedies that city has "assisted". That doesn't mean I want Las Vegas shut down or "banned". Freedom and liberty has inherent risks. And you can't have one without the other.

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"It is a natural impossibility that a government should have a right to punish men for their vices; because it is impossible that a government should have any rights, except such as the individuals composing it had previously had, as individuals. They could not delegate to a government any rights which they did not themselves possess. They could not contribute to the government any rights, except such as they themselves possessed as individuals. Now, nobody but a fool or an impostor pretends that he, as an individual, has a right to punish other men for their vices. But anybody and everybody have a natural right, as individuals, to punish other men for their crimes; for everybody has a natural right, not only to defend his own person and property against aggressors, but also to go to the assistance and defence of everybody else, whose person or property is invaded. The natural right of each individual to defend his own person and property against an aggressor, and to go to the assistance and defence of every one else whose person or property is invaded, is a right without which men could not exist on the earth. And government has no rightful existence, except in so far as it embodies, and is limited by, this natural right of individuals. But the idea that each man has a natural right to decide what are virtues, and what are vices --- that is, what contributes to that neighbors happiness, and what do not --- and to punish him for all that do not contribute to it; is what no one ever had the impudence or folly to assert. It is only those who claim that government has some rightful power, which no individual or individuals ever did, or could, delegate to it, that claim that government has any rightful power to punish vices.

It will do for a pope or a king --- who claims to have received direct authority from Heaven, to rule over his fellow-men --- to claim the right, as the vicegerent of God, to punish men for their vices; but it is a sheer and utter absurdity for any government, claiming to derive its power wholly from the grant of the governed, to claim any such power; because everybody knows that the governed never would grant it. For them to grant it would be an absurdity, because it would be granting away their own right to seek their own happiness; since to grant away their right to judge of what will be for their happiness, is to grant away all their right to pursue their own happiness."

and

"In the midst of this endless variety of opinion, what man, or what body of men, has the right to say, in regard to any particular action, or course of action, "We have tried this experiment, and determined every question involved in it? We have determined it, not only for ourselves, but for all others? And, as to all those who are weaker than we, we will coerce them to act in obedience to our conclusion? We will suffer no further experiment or inquiry by any one, and, consequently, no further acquisition of knowledge by anybody?"

Who are the men who have the right to say this? Certainly there none such. The men who really do say it, are either shameless impostors and tyrants, who would stop the progress of knowledge, and usurp absolute control over the minds and bodies of their fellow men; and are therefore to resisted instantly, and to the last extent; or they are themselves too ignorant of their own weaknesses, and of their true relations to other men, to be entitled to any other consideration than sheer pity or contempt......"

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Well, if its your body and you can do what you want with it == there is no problem with the Right to Privacy if a woman chooses not to be encumbered with unwanted kids. Just think if Adolph and Mussolini were aborted ... Planned Parenthood, Responsible Life, of course if you don't believe in Responsible Life just pop out the kid and Uncle Sammy will provide federal funds for it ... and if you drink and smoke and the kid has a "disability" even more federal funds from Uncle Sammy.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The Catholic coverup campaign of Pro life when Pius and Catholic Hitler exterminated so many under the guise of their religion is the BEST and only religion - had to hide the atrocities and torture and death camps with Pro life ... from death camps to pro life (right after the war!!!) But, how does Roe v Wade!! which clearly states what a woman does with her body is; The Right to Privacy ... and I might add that in Hodgson v Minn 1991, the Supreme Court upheld the right to privacy when a 14 year old mostly Catholic girls are pregnant - NO teacher, nurse or administrator can inform the parent/guardian!! So for Pro life thrilled the kid who can't afford a pack of smokes will be a birth giver and flush the tissue or kid down a toilet. However, the Catholic church decided let's crawl in bed or the back seat of a car ... and crawl up a woman's V a g I n a, invade the Right to Privacy as religion!!! so Pro life, so disgusting. With that in mind since the Right to Privacy is ignored: How many times a day does the pope masturbate? What .. it's none of my business ...just like the Right to Privacy should be respected for any and all women ... don't forget the PBS Catholic Documentary .... Secrets of the Vatican ... and if you are celibate, or you think others are: think again with this documentary.